Maximum possible energies of electrons accelerated in magnetospheres of rotating black holes

N. Nikuradze; Z. N. Osmanov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Maximum possible energies of electrons accelerated in magnetospheres of rotating black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The maximum energy a rotating black hole can push an electron to is controlled by the black hole's mass, with ceilings from about 1.3×10^3 for stellar-mass holes up to about 10^6 for the ultramassive hole in Abell 1201.

desk verdict The reader's algebra objection to Eq. 12 is wrong; the real problem is that Eq. 9's magnetic field cannot produce the numbers the paper quotes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16982 v2 pith:DOTDHRTL submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

N. Nikuradze , Z. N. Osmanov This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords blackholemagnetospherescentrifugalaccelerationelectronLorentzfactorlimitsinverseComptonscatteringco-rotationconstraintintermediate-massholesultramassive

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how fast electrons can be accelerated by the centrifugal slingshot of a rotating black hole's magnetic field lines, and how that depends on the black hole's mass. It finds mass-dependent ceilings on the electron Lorentz factor: about 1.3×$10^{3}$–1.3×$10^{4}$ for stellar-mass black holes, 1.3×$10^{4}$–1.1×$10^{5}$ for intermediate-mass black holes, 7×$10^{4}$–1.7×$10^{5}$ for supermassive black holes, and about $10^{6}$ for the ultramassive black hole in Abell 1201. The limits are set mainly by the breakdown of co-rotation and by inverse Compton scattering off disk photons, with curvature radiation playing a secondary role. A sympathetic reader should care because this gives a mass-linked prediction for how black holes act as particle accelerators, including for the uncertain class of intermediate-mass black holes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bead-on-the-wire approximation: an electron is treated as a bead sliding along a straight magnetic field line that rotates rigidly with the black hole's angular velocity Ω. The electron's Lorentz factor is given by Eq. (8), γ = γ0 (1 − r0²/R_LC²)/(1 − r²/R_LC²), where R_LC = c/Ω is the light cylinder radius. The argument is carried by the co-rotation constraint Eq. (12), which follows from demanding the magnetic energy density B²/8π exceed the plasma energy density γ n_GJ m_e c² with n_GJ the Goldreich–Julian density, and by the balance between the centrifugal acceleration power P_acc and the radiative powers of inverse Compton scattering and curvature radiation. The Bondi accretion model sets the magnetic field as B ∝ (G M_BH/r)^{5/4}, which couples the co-rotation limit to black hole mass and spin.

What would settle it

A particle-in-cell simulation of a rotating black hole magnetosphere following a single electron along a straight equatorial field line, or a measured spectral cutoff from an intermediate-mass black hole candidate, that exceeds the predicted Lorentz-factor ceilings would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On rigidly rotating, straight magnetic field lines in the equatorial plane, an electron's Lorentz factor rises as γ = γ0 (1 − r0²/R_LC²)/(1 − r²/R_LC²) as it approaches the light cylinder, and would diverge there if nothing stopped it. The maximum achievable Lorentz factor is determined by three limiting mechanisms: the co-rotation constraint γ ≤ $\sqrt$(B e / (4 γ0 Ω m_e c)), inverse Compton scattering (Thomson or Klein–Nishina), and curvature radiation. Using a Bondi accretion model for the magnetic field and a Goldreich–Julian density for the plasma, the paper computes allowed regions in the (r,γ) plane and finds that the dominant constraint shifts with black hole mass. The resulting maximum Lorentz factors are of order $10^{3}$–$10^{4}$ for stellar-mass holes, $10^{4}$–$10^{5}$ for intermediate-mass holes, 7×$10^{4}$–1.7×$10^{5}$ for supermassive holes, and ~$10^{6}$ for the Abell 1201 ultramassive hole. The paper also identifies a mass range around $10^{6}$–$10^{8}$ solar masses where acceleration is impossible, because the initial Lorentz factor needed to avoid Thomson losses already exceeds the co-rotation limit.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the claim that an electron stays glued to the field line until the magnetic energy density drops below the particle's kinetic energy density, with the particle density taken from the Goldreich–Julian formula; this inequality is asserted rather than derived from force balance or a simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For stellar-mass black holes, co-rotation alone caps electrons at γ ~ 1.3×10^3–1.3×10^4, independent of where the particle starts.
For black holes above about 10^4 M_sun, inverse Compton Thomson scattering cuts off particles that begin near the black hole, forcing electrons to start close to the light cylinder and lowering the maximum Lorentz factor as mass grows.
Supermassive black holes above about 10^6 M_sun cannot accelerate electrons at all unless the electron starts in the Klein–Nishina regime; acceleration only resumes above about 10^8 M_sun, after which γ_max scales as M^{1/2}.
The ultramassive black hole in Abell 1201 reaches electron Lorentz factors of order 10^6, making it a plausible source of high-energy radiation.
Varying the black hole spin from 0.1 to 0.2 changes the maximum Lorentz factor by less than about one percent in logarithmic terms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the mass-dependent ceilings hold, the mechanism offers a way to estimate black hole mass from the spectral cutoff of high-energy emission, which could help confirm or rule out intermediate-mass black hole candidates such as the one in 47 Tucanae.
The co-rotation inequality is the least secure link; a proper force-balance or particle-in-cell treatment might shift all quoted Lorentz factors, although the qualitative ordering by mass would likely survive.
Extending the same machinery to protons or heavier ions would raise the achievable energy roughly by the particle mass ratio while changing which radiative loss dominates, likely making curvature radiation the limiting factor.
A direct comparison with observed TeV or PeV emission from Seyferts or intermediate-mass black holes would provide an immediate test of the predicted ~10^5–10^6 electron ceilings.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick note on arXiv:2411.16982. The reader's rejection letter hangs on an algebra error in Eq. 12, but that objection doesn't survive contact with the paper. Substituting n_GJ = γγ0ΩB/(2πec) into B²/8π ≥ γ n_GJ m_e c² gives γ ≤ sqrt(B e/(4γ0Ωm_e c)), with γ0 in the denominator exactly as printed. So that part of the reader's critique is wrong.

What the paper actually does is a straightforward parameter scan: take the known magneto-centrifugal acceleration formula (Rieger 2011; Osmanov & Rieger 2016), apply the Goldreich-Julian density plus the co-rotation energy-density inequality, add IC and curvature losses, and run over BH masses from 1 to 3.3e10 solar masses. The new output is the mass dependence of γ_max and the claimed thresholds at ~1e4 and ~1e6 solar masses, including the Abell 1201 case. That is a legitimate extension of existing machinery, and the paper is honest about what it assumes.

The soft spot is not Eq. 12. It is Eq. 9. Evaluated at the light cylinder for a 1e6 solar mass BH with a=0.1 and the stated Bondi parameters, the printed expression gives B on the order of 1e17 G, not the 2.35e3 G the text quotes and all subsequent numbers use. A correct Bondi free-fall derivation (with u∞³ in the denominator rather than the numerator) gives something like a few times 1e3 G, so the quoted gamma_max values are reproducible only if you silently use the calibrated B, not the printed formula. Since γ_max scales like sqrt(B), that is a factor of a few in the final energies, which moves the claimed ranges but does not obviously destroy the mass-scaling trend. Still, the central numbers are not reproducible from the equations as written, and a referee would need the authors to fix the dimensional error and derive the co-rotation criterion from force balance rather than asserting it.

Worth a serious referee? Yes, but with a request for major revision. The framework is established, the question (mass-dependent electron energies as an IMBH diagnostic) is reasonable, and the flaws are concrete and fixable. The reader's reported algebra error should not be the basis for rejection.

I'd bring it to a reading group if the topic were centrifugal acceleration; otherwise it's a subfield paper. I would not cite it in my own work in the next year. But it deserves a referee, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models centrifugal acceleration of electrons along rotating magnetic field lines in black hole magnetospheres. It applies three limiting factors—the co-rotation (bead-on-the-wire) constraint, inverse Compton scattering, and curvature radiation—and scans black hole mass from stellar-mass objects to the ultramassive black hole in Abell 1201. The main outputs are ranges of maximum Lorentz factors, roughly 1.3e3–1.3e4 for stellar-mass black holes, 1.3e4–1.1e5 for intermediate-mass black holes, 7e4–1.7e5 for supermassive black holes, and about 1e6 for the Abell 1201 black hole, with the co-rotation constraint and IC Thomson losses as the controlling factors in different mass regimes.

Significance. If the quantitative results were reproducible, the paper would offer a mass-dependent diagnostic for electron acceleration in black hole magnetospheres and a concrete application to a recently discovered ultramassive black hole. The work is a parameter-space extension of the authors' earlier centrifugal acceleration studies rather than a new physical mechanism. The claims are falsifiable in the sense that they are tied to specific input parameters and analytic inequalities. However, in its current form the central numerical predictions cannot be reproduced from the printed equations, owing to a field-normalization inconsistency and an incorrect IC power factor, so the significance cannot yet be assessed reliably.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) as printed cannot yield the stated magnetic field. Inserting rho_inf=1e-24 g/cm^3, u_inf=1e6 cm/s, M=1e6 M_sun, a=0.1, and r=R_LC=5.9e12 cm into the displayed formula gives B of order 1e17 G if the factor is read as a product, or about 1e8 G if it is read as a quotient, whereas the text immediately below states B is of order 2.35e3 G on the light cylinder and this value is used throughout (e.g., the synchrotron time-scale in Section 1 and the co-rotation bound in Eq. 12). Since gamma_max scales as sqrt(B) in Eq. (12), the quoted ranges in Section 4 are not reproducible from the printed equations. A Bondi scaling consistent with the authors' own accretion rate in Eq. (17) gives B~[pi sqrt(2) rho_inf/u_inf^3]^{1/2}(GM/r)^{5/4}, which is close to 3e3 G here; the paper should state that formula explicitly, correct any typographical error in Eq. (9), and recompute the results.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (14)] The Thomson inverse Compton power is written as P_T=(sigma_T sigma T^4/4) gamma^2/(1+gamma k_B T/(m_e c^2)). For an isotropic blackbody photon field the standard expression is P_IC=(16/3) sigma_T sigma T^4 gamma^2/(1+...), so the numerical prefactor in Eq. (14) is too small by a factor of 64/3 ~ 21.3. The boundaries between allowed and IC-restricted regions in Figs. 5, 7, 8, and 10 are set by the balance P_acc=P_IC, so this error shifts the threshold masses (claimed near 1e4 and 1e6 M_sun) and the resulting gamma_max intervals for IMBHs, SMBHs, and the Abell 1201 UMBH. The authors need to correct this factor and re-run the parameter scan.
[Section 3.1, Eqs. (10)-(12) and Section 4.1] The printed Eq. (10) has the factor (1-r^2/R_LC^2) in the numerator, but the substitution below it uses the inverse, and the standard Goldreich-Julian density diverges as (1-r^2/R_LC^2)^-1 at the light cylinder. As printed, n_GJ vanishes at the LC, which would remove the co-rotation constraint exactly where the model predicts it to bind. In addition, the replacement leading to Eq. (11) is valid only under the initial condition gamma0=(1-r0^2/R_LC^2)^-1/2, which is not stated. This matters because Section 4.1 says the final gamma is independent of the starting point, whereas Eq. (12) depends on gamma0 through that condition; the claim and the equation are in tension. Please state the initial-condition assumption and either qualify or revise the claim.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (13)] The Lorentz factor should be the inverse square root; as printed the lower bound appears with a positive exponent, which is dimensionally and physically incorrect.
[Section 4.5] The text states that increasing a from 0.1 to 0.2 changes the logarithm of gamma_max by no more than about 1%, but gamma_max ~ Omega^{1/8} with Omega roughly doubling gives about a 9% increase in gamma_max (about 4% in log10), so the quoted sensitivity appears too small.
[Section 5] In the stellar-mass black hole sentence, the range is printed as '1.3×10^4−1.3×10^4' after an earlier '1.3×10^3−1.3×10^4', which is confusing; the duplicated range should be fixed.
[Data Availability] The Data Availability statement says data can be accessed via a DOI link, but no DOI is provided in the text.
[Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract contains 'co-rotation constrain' instead of 'constraint', and Section 4.2 uses '0.58<r_0<0.87' without stating that radii are normalized by R_LC.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gamma_max ranges are self-consistent outputs of the stated co-rotation and radiation constraints, not restatements of the inputs; self-citations are framework references rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Eq. (7) follows from the radial force balance of a bead on a rotating wire; Eq. (8) is the exact solution and is re-derived in the text, with the Rieger 2011 / Osmanov & Rieger 2016 citations serving as cross-references rather than as the source of the result. The co-rotation limit, Eq. (12), is obtained algebraically from the stated energy-density inequality B^2/8pi >= gamma n_GJ m_e c^2 together with the Goldreich-Julian density (Eqs. 10-11); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The initial Lorentz factor gamma0 is not adjusted to force the output; it is the kinematic minimum at the launch radius (Eq. 13), and the reported maxima are the result of scanning physically allowed launch radii under the IC-Thomson/KN and curvature-radiation constraints. The self-citations (Osmanov et al. 2007; Osmanov & Rieger 2009, 2016; Osmanov 2008, 2021) provide the bead-on-wire framework and the field-line geometry assumptions, but the mass-dependent gamma_max values are new outputs of the stated inequalities. The apparent discrepancy between Eq. (9) as printed and the quoted B ~ 2.35e3 G at the light cylinder is an internal consistency/typographical issue in the magnetic-field normalization, not a circular step, and therefore does not raise the circularity score. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard magnetospheric and accretion-disk assumptions taken from prior literature, plus a small number of scanned input parameters (r0, gamma0, spin). No new entities are introduced. The co-rotation inequality is an ad hoc modeling choice, and the initial gamma0 for SMBHs is selected to make acceleration possible.

free parameters (4)

Initial radial coordinate r0 = 0.6 R_LC to ~R_LC
The maximum Lorentz factor depends on starting distance; the reported ranges are maxima over r0. It is a scanned model input, not fitted to data.
Initial Lorentz factor gamma0 = ~7e4 for SMBHs above ~1e6 M_sun
For SMBHs and UMBHs, gamma0 is chosen so the electron starts in the Klein-Nishina regime; this choice determines whether acceleration is possible and the resulting gamma_max.
Spin parameter a = 0.1 to 0.2
Narrow range chosen to keep gravitational effects negligible; gamma_max varies by less than 1% within this range.
Bondi ISM parameters rho_inf and u_inf = rho_inf = 1e-24 g/cm3, u_inf = 1e6 cm/s
Typical interstellar medium values taken from Shapiro and Teukolsky 1983; they set the magnetic field normalization B in Eq. 9.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Electrons are confined to straight, rigidly co-rotating magnetic field lines in the equatorial plane until near the light cylinder.
Section 1 and 2 state the field lines are assumed rectilinear with large curvature radii in the equatorial plane.
domain assumption Synchrotron cooling rapidly damps perpendicular momentum so electrons slide along field lines in the ground Landau state.
Section 1 estimates tau_s ~ 1e-2 s, much shorter than the rotation period.
domain assumption Gravitational force is negligible for radial motion when spin is small and r > 0.6 R_LC.
Section 2 and 4 use small spin factor and r > 0.6 R_LC to justify dropping gravity.
ad hoc to paper The co-rotation breakdown is governed by the energy-density inequality B^2/8π >= γ n_GJ m_e c^2.
Section 3.1 introduces this inequality as the condition for confinement; it is not derived from force balance or simulations.
domain assumption The Goldreich-Julian density n_GJ = ΩB/(2πec)(1 - r^2/R_LC^2) applies in the black hole magnetosphere.
Section 3.1, Eq. 10 follows Goldreich and Julian 1969, applied here to black hole magnetospheres.
domain assumption The accretion disk temperature at r = 2R_s is given by the thin disk formula and is about 8.82e4 K.
Section 3.2, Eqs. 15-16 from Carroll and Ostlie 2017; used for inverse Compton scattering.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum possible energies of electrons accelerated in magnetospheres of rotating black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOTDHRTL

@misc{pith2026241116982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum possible energies of electrons accelerated in magnetospheres of rotating black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOTDHRTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16982}
}

read the original abstract

Our aim is to evaluate the maximum attainable energies of electrons accelerated by means of the magneto-centrifugal mechanism. We examine how the range of maximum possible energies, as well as the primary limiting factors, vary with black hole mass. Additionally, we analyse the dependence of the maximum relativistic factor on the initial distance from the black hole and its spin factor in the range 0.1 - 0.2. We model the acceleration of electrons on rotating magnetic field lines and apply several constraining mechanisms: the inverse Compton scattering, curvature radiation, and the breakdown of the bead-on-the-wire approximation. As a result, the maximum Lorentz factors for electron acceleration vary with the type of black hole. For stellar-mass black holes, electrons can be accelerated up to the Lorentz factors 1.3 * 10^3 - 1.3 * 10^4 with only co-rotation constrain affecting the maximum relativistic factor; In intermediate-mass black holes, the Lorentz factors are in the interval 1.3 * 10^4 - 1.1 * 10^5; For the supermassive black holes the Lorentz factors range from 7 * 10^4 to 1.7 * 10^5; while the ultra-massive black hole located at the center of Abell 1201 can accelerate electrons up to 10^6 with both the co-rotation and Inverse Compton in Thomson regime determining the final Lorentz factor for the last three categories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16982 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Force diagram in the rotating frame 𝜐® = 𝑑𝑟® 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑟¤ · ®𝑒𝑟 + 𝑟𝜃¤ · ®𝑒𝜙 (3) 𝑎® = 𝑑𝜐® 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑟¥ − Ω 2 𝑟 · ®𝑒𝑟 + 2𝑟¤𝜃¤ · ®𝑒𝜙 (4) 𝛾 = 1 √︃ 1 − 𝑟¤ 2+𝑟 2 𝜃¤2 𝑐 2 (5) For the force, one has the following expression 𝐹® = 𝑑(𝛾𝑚𝑒𝜐®) 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑚𝑒 © « 𝑟¤ 2 ( ¥𝑟 + Ω2 𝑟) 𝑐 2 1 − 𝜐2 𝑐 2 3 2 + 𝑟¥ − Ω2 𝑟 1 − 𝜐2 𝑐 2 1 2 ª ® ® ® ¬ 𝑒®𝑟 + 𝐹𝜃 𝑒®𝜃 (6) The only force acting on the electron in the radial direction is gravitational… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) Electron trajectory (Blue curve), Black disk in the middle is the BH and outer black circle is the LC (b) The Lorentz factor dependence on the radial distance the equation of motion. It appears that the dependence of the Lorentz factor on radial distance is as follows: 𝛾 = 𝛾0 1 − 𝑟 2 0 𝑅 2 𝐿𝐶 1 − 𝑟 2 𝑅 2 𝐿𝐶 (8) where 𝛾0 and 𝑟0 are initial Lorentz factor and radial distance respectively (Rieger 2011; Osmanov & R… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Map of restricted and allowed regions. Shaded regions represent restrictions with their respective origins. The white region represents allowed Lorentz factors. 𝑀𝐵𝐻 = 10𝑀⊙ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Possible maximum Lorentz factors for Stellar-MBHs gravitational field, we explored the acceleration process in the region where 𝑟 ⪆ 0.6𝑅𝐿𝐶. In the next section, we discuss specific values of 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 for the respective categories of black holes. 4.1 Stellar-Mass black hole…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Map of restricted and allowed regions for 𝑀𝐵𝐻 = 104𝑀⊙. Shaded regions represent restrictions with their respective origins. White region represents allowed Lorentz factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Map of restricted and allowed regions for 𝑀𝐵𝐻 = 108𝑀⊙. Shaded regions represent restrictions with their respective origins. The white region represents allowed Lorentz factors. this point, the radiation power in the IC Thomson regime becomes so strong that an electron …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The dependence of maximum relativistic factor on the spin factor for BH with 𝑀𝐵𝐻 = 1011𝑀⊙ magnetic field induction also depends on the spin factor. From Eq. 9, we can conclude that 𝐵 ∼ Ω 5 4 . If we take into account the dependence of 𝐵 on the BH angular velocity, it …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Map of restricted and allowed zones for electrons in the magnetosphere of the ultramassive black hole in the centre of Abell 1201 velocity. Consequently, the acceleration power is much smaller than the radiation power in the inverse Compton Thomson regime. Thus, the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...
[2]

R., 1978a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

Bell A. R., 1978a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147
[3]

R., 1978b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..443B 182, 443

Bell A. R., 1978b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..443B 182, 443

doi:10.1093/mnras/182.3.443
[4]

D., Znajek R

Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977
[5]

R., Gould R

Blumenthal G. R., Gould R. J., 1970, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237 , 42, 237

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970
[6]

Bondi H., 1952, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , 112, 195

doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952
[7]

W., Ostlie D

Carroll B. W., Ostlie D. A., 2017, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, 2 edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, @doi 10.1017/9781108380980

doi:10.1017/9781108380980 2017
[8]

C., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316435 , 111, 1193

Catanese M., Weekes T. C., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316435 , 111, 1193

work page doi:10.1086/316435 1999

Show all 23 references

[9]

Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169 , 75, 1169

Fermi E., 1949, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169 , 75, 1169

1949 doi
[10]

H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

Goldreich P., Julian W. H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

1969 doi
[11]

K z ltan B., Baumgardt H., Loeb A., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature22320 , 545, 510

2017 doi
[12]

W., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad587 , 521, 3298

Nightingale J. W., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad587 , 521, 3298

2023 doi
[13]

Osmanov Z., 2021, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies9010006 , 9, 6

2021 doi
[14]

M., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2408 , 464, 1347

Osmanov Z., Rieger F. M., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2408 , 464, 1347

2016 doi
[15]

2008, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809710 , 490, 487

Osmanov, Z. 2008, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809710 , 490, 487

2008 doi
[16]

Rieger, F

Osmanov, Z. Rieger, F. M. 2009, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912101 , 502, 15

2009 doi
[17]

Rogava, A

Osmanov, Z. Rogava, A. Bodo, G. 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065817 , 470, 395

2007 doi
[18]

M., 2011, @doi [Int

Rieger F. M., 2011, @doi [Int. J. of Mod. Phys. D] 10.1142/S0218271811019712 , 20, 1547

2011 doi
[19]

M., Mannheim K., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353..473R 353, 473

Rieger F. M., Mannheim K., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353..473R 353, 473

2000 doi arXiv
[20]

Rogava A., Dalakishvili G., Osmanov Z., 2003, @doi [Gen. Rel. and Grav.] 10.1023/A:1024450105374 , 35, 1133

2003 doi
[21]

A., Sutherland P

Ruderman M. A., Sutherland P. G., 1975, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/153393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...196...51R 196, 51

1975 doi
[22]

L., Teukolsky S

Shapiro S. L., Teukolsky S. A., 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, @doi 10.1002/9783527617661

1983 doi
[23]

S., Price R

Thorne K. S., Price R. H., MacDonald D. A., 1986, Black holes: The membrane paradigm . New Haven: Yale University Press

1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

[2] [2]

R., 1978a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

Bell A. R., 1978a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B 182, 147

doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

[3] [3]

R., 1978b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..443B 182, 443

Bell A. R., 1978b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..443B 182, 443

doi:10.1093/mnras/182.3.443

[4] [4]

D., Znajek R

Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

[5] [5]

R., Gould R

Blumenthal G. R., Gould R. J., 1970, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237 , 42, 237

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

[6] [6]

Bondi H., 1952, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , 112, 195

doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

[7] [7]

W., Ostlie D

Carroll B. W., Ostlie D. A., 2017, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, 2 edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, @doi 10.1017/9781108380980

doi:10.1017/9781108380980 2017

[8] [8]

C., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316435 , 111, 1193

Catanese M., Weekes T. C., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316435 , 111, 1193

work page doi:10.1086/316435 1999